The warning signs are there for genocide in Ethiopia
theguardian.com.
theguardian.com.
There was a WB or FMI financed project to replace IDs (so to remove ethic group), but it stopped for many reasons (I know some, but not sure about it).
Face it, when a great power does bad things, very few can oppose them, internally or externally. Consequences will be limited. They know it, and that's why they keep doing it and getting away with it.
The UN can't do anything because it can only work if everyone is there, at the table, and of course the big bad guys and their allies won't want to sanction themselves. The UN is the best possible realistic version.
All that aside, the ongoing genocide in Tigray is a real problem that needs to be stopped. Whatabouting won't help the people there.
If I had a say, we wouldn't do none of those things.
But it seems as a mere individual I Am powerless in doing anything against these issues.
When a state attacks, on-mass, its own citizens it's essentially failed. Absent a functioning state, any outsider can do what they want here: invade, preferably.
The "whataboutism" here isn't solved with yet more whataboutism. Every state today and in all of history has waged war, and holds itself to low standards on non-citizens. There is nothing exceptional in the US having Guantanamo; it is a world-wide exception not to have one! (And I agree, incidentally, that there shouldnt be one).
A genocide isn't part-and-parcel of the nature of states; it is the opposite. An exceptional event which represents a profound failure of the state. It was the genocidal conditions of slavery which caused the US federal state to fail: civil war.
A failed state isn't one that does thngs you don't like. China doesn't like that there are many, many countries where you can say bad things about China. It's one that can't control very large parts of its territory or get things done. Being evil and failing are separate concepts. The Qing killed the Dzhungars. They eradicated an entire ethnic group. That was a strong state, not a failed one.
And of course outsiders can invade if they're willing to put up with the consequences. International law is and always has been a farce, from Grotius making up the law of the sea to protect Dutch weakness in Northern European waters when they were abusing all round them in the East Indies, to the victor's "justice" of the Nuremberg trials to the differing treatments of genocide depending on great power sponsorship. At its most farcical you have puppet regimes of the "international community" like the Somali or Afghan puppets.
You can invade if you're willing to pay for it.
The allied victors made laws then retroactively applied them.
Why was there so little reflection, consequence or punishment for allied murders, rapes and killings?
Why were these new laws only applied to the loser?
The Nuremberg trials have been described as show trials and organised lynching by the victors. The Soviets provided a judge who had helped oversee purges in the ‘30s where hundreds of thousands were murdered by the Soviet state. While the defendants perhaps got what they deserved, they did not get a fair trial or the opportunity to voice inconvenient truths.
The sentencing was unequal and illogical - why did Speer get the sentence he got?
The US having a place under its control yet where federal law and its own rights laws do not apply is exceptional. The whole point of it is to be a place of exception from scrutiny. Few countries have such a place - certainly few democratic countries.
There are 7bn people on the planet, how many do you think are under a jurisdiction with "human rights" ? Not many.
I’m still somewhat surprised how anyone can claim that and still be considered not a nazi.
Nothing I said here said any war is justified. My comment is to compare the US with other countries, rather than with its own internal standards of right-and-wrong. Whataboutism fails to be objective, in turning common properties of every state (eg., waging war) into grave sins of one's own -- and then actually grave sins of other states into trivialities.
The states holding themselves to the highest moral standards in the world are western. Russians feel no sin to have invaded ukraine. The idea that whataboutism even has two legs to stand on in the west is a symptom of how poorly people understand other countries.
Regarding Russia: remember what happened when Russians downed an airliner in Ukraine? They “disappeared” the perpetrators. Remember what happened when Americans downed an airliner in Iran? They decorated the perpetrators. This is some difference in moral standards indeed.
Of course when most of this was happening right after the first Gulf War ,when Sadam was killed ten of thousands of Kurds using both conventional and chemical weapons US sat idly completely ignoring it. And this is basically why the 1st Gulf war was considered a success compared to the second one.
> Iraq war
Largest protests in history and (less noticable) a decline in US power, leadership, respect. In 50 years the Iraq war fuckup whill the thaught as the moment the American empire began to fall.
> Russia
Large scale sanctions in Europe, but IMHO weaker than they should be. Considering German interests and our collective addiction on Russian gas it's the best we can get I'm afraid.
We don't face it, and the discourse like this is part of the problem. Don't say this, don't "face" it.
Proving the opposite of what you say.
Point number 1) Hate speech has indeed increased and was essentially unavoidable due to Ethiopia's very ethnicized regions. Tigrayans and, to a lesser extent, Amharas have been facing the brunt of it. Most of it is on social media like Facebook and Twitter, which lack the skill to handle Ethiopian languages. The article claims that the government is peddling hate speech by using words like "terrorists" to describe the group that is currently carrying out an insurgency. The group TPLF, which had ruled Ethiopia for almost three decades until 2018, started the war in November 2020 by attacking federal bases in Ethiopia's Tigray region.
Point Number 2) TPLF rule was very ethnicized. TPLF had ensured that most of the personnel and leadership in crucial institutes like the military were held by their ethnic group. As a result, tens of thousands of soldiers and many commanders mutined with TPLF. And not only did Ethiopia lose personnel, but they also lost their most mechanized command to TPLFs initial attack, which is how TPLF currently has SAM missiles. The government had no choice but to mobilize militias and has tried to limit them as much as possible.
The reality of war is that it always results in collateral damage and crimes against civilians, and very seldom can meaningful actions be taken to hold the perpetrators accountable. This is equally true for third-world countries as it is for first-world countries. So when we see US and UK commit reprehensible crimes without any accountability, I find it hard to expect even more from a third-world country that is essentially fighting what it believes is an existential war. Nonetheless, Ethiopia has announced that it has already sentenced dozens of its soldiers to jail for crimes and is investigating more, although scant information has been released about each case. But I don't think countries, in general, are open about what is going on in their military courts.
Point number 3) Since all the government and its people believe they are fighting an existential war against insurgents, I find it unsurprising that the "with us or against us" mentality has materialized. I mean, tens of thousands have died, millions of people are displaced, and entire communities have been destroyed. We can look back twenty years and see that the shutdown of discussion is entirely expected and frankly more justified in this scenario.
Point number 5) The international community is divided because the situation is not what this opinion piece claims. The war has a decade-long history and is very complex. Opinion pieces like these that ignore this reality only harm the people. We've seen statements from well-known activists who completely disregard the suffering of some people at the hands of the insurgents because they harped on only one aspect of this war. For example, right now, the insurgents are in Amhara and, to a lesser extent, Afar looting, killing civilians, and stealing food aid destined for the hundreds of thousands of IDPs in those regions. Despite this, you can still see purported human rights activists encourage the insurgents and disregard the suffering of hundreds of thousands of civilians.
This war is horrible and must end as soon as possible, but it is not a genocide. Shortsighted solutions will only worsen the situation and destabilize the entire region. We must be mindful of our actions and recognize how our previous methods have only resulted in a worse situation that, in addition, to the increased suffering, damaged EU and caused a rise to illiberal views. We should, instead, create an environment for peace and facilitate aid to all the suffering people in Tigray, Amhara, and Afar.
This article is about Ethiopia, not China. The issue on the ground there is complex and includes decades of war, and behind the scenes pressuring of a lot of countries. Including the US. And China which stepped into the power vacuum left by former colonial powers and the US withdrawing from the continent in recent decades. Like it or not, the Chinese are running the show across much of Africa now. They have controlling financial interests across the region.
Part of that has been supporting the current Ethiopian government (i.e. the very people accused in the article of preparing for genocide) as part of a negotiated end to previous wars in the area. That regime has been responding to an uprising fueled in large part by their policies to marginalize and oppress the people of Tigray.
That uprising has been unexpectedly swift and violent. Part of the reason that the Ethiopian government is mobilizing and arming citizens is that they are losing ground rapidly and starting to panic. Addis Ababa is a big city and it getting sucked into the conflict is now a possibility. That would not be a good thing; no matter who you support. The people of Tigray just want their independence and freedom from oppression, and now indeed genocide. Hard not to sympathize with that. The way out here is diplomacy; find a solution. That probably means replacing the current regime in Ethiopia. The alternative is another prolonged conflict.
With conflicts like this, following the money is a useful exercise. Both sides must have some financial support. Follow the money and you might end up with a short list of usual suspects. Proxy wars have replaced conventional wars. If genocide happens is it's because of conflicting interests between those.
You don't need to follow the money, it's been very obvious for last decade already.
The old East Bloc was very keen on working with both old Marxist government of Ethiopia, as well as with people who toppled it, just for as long as they strayed away from the West.
Since Abiy was aiming to engage with the West, they put sticks in his wheels, and apparently very successfully so.
Nineties - mid-naughties was a short window of opportunity for when it wasn't the case, and the only window when the UN reform was possible.
Bush completely wasted it, and Obama kind of didn't want it, if not being hostile in the background of overall anti-US wave.
This is evidence of how badly internal US culture war politics have damaged the public’s understanding of institutions and the way the world works.
Which United Nations is useless? The World Health Organisation? The World Food Programme? The UN Security Council? It’s a big organisation with both technical agencies (like the WFP) and forums for countries to coordinate like the General Assembly and Security Council.
The UN is not and never was a world police with the power to stop injustice or war. There are no UN troops or police. The UNSC has no power of it’s own, it’s just a coordination point where the world’s major powers can decide whether or not to take action on any given event. They can choose to fund and approve international interventions, but all that does is give them a budget and legal authority. After that countries still need to voluntarily send troops and equipment for any mission.
The problems with ‘the UN’ are really the problems of our global system and the outsized power that some countries have by virtue of their economic and military strength and geographic control. The only thing that would change if the UN disappeared is that those global powers would have even fewer checks on their behaviour and ability to interfere in less powerful countries.
That pretty much was the original design of the UN, a league of democracies.
I encourage you to dig into history a bit, and find the name of the country which almost forcefully dragged USSR into the UN project, among protest of entire Western Bloc.
It was a very conscious sabotage.
Stalin balked at the last moment, and was convinced by FDR to join because it was believed that if the USSR wasn't part of the UN it was doomed to fail just as the League of Nations had before it. It was better to have the world's major powers be committed into and part of it, rather than outside, even if that meant having less freedom of action to pursue interventions as the UN.
It was a conscious decision to make the world more stable.
While FDR himself was a big proponent of US joining the League of Nations, he himself was fully conscious that him inviting Stalin into the UN would make it pointless, and useless. His fear was exactly that UN will not be toothless, and US position as the biggest post-war power will be hampered by an international body, or it being dragged into conflicts by Europeans, so Stalin was his way to put a deadweight on UN's neck from the beginning.
UN was an organisation which even originally rejected many quite decent democratic nations for minor flaws, and principally, opposition from major powers. Heck, even Germany was only allowed to join in seventies. So, no illusions about that.
Maybe, his another concern was that he would've never be allowed to join the UN by the congress, unless he were to provide the republicans with assurance that the body is useless. That's my own theory I developed when reading on FDR in high school.
That’s quite US-centric.
Completely fucked up their response to covid, mostly of of a fear of Xis ego.
>The World Food Programme?
The world has fought famine by economic growth, not charity
>The UN Security Council?
Can't stop a genocide in Rowanda, Bosnia, let alone in China.
No global agency can work if countries don't cooperate or report false information. We don't have a world government.
> The world has fought famine by economic growth, not charity
False, millions are supported by WFP feeding programmes. This isn't even difficult to look up.
>The UN Security Council?
Again, the UNSC is just a venue where the world's most powerful countries can cooperate. It's not an independent agency with its own army. See point 1, of 'we don't have a world government', above.
All these things you're blaming 'the UN' for should actually be directed at the world's major powers, because they're the ones making all the key decisions. Not UN bureaucrats.
be aware that United Nations has no $$. can I say the main reason for this is the USA not paying its quote?
I just googled and got this https://www.devex.com/news/with-the-us-still-owing-nearly-2b... but try it out yourself
for various reason the Usa is not paying, but UN has to beg for money every time there is a peace keeping operation.
You know how they say: if you own money to a bank, YOU have a problem, but if you own A LOT of money to a bank, the BANK has the problem... so I would say that it is pretty clear that Usa is using this debt to influence (even more) U.N. policy